This is a very long comment for someone who obviously didn't read the article.
If you did, you'd quickly find that I wasn't arguing that all runs should be "easy", but rather, the runs in between workout days should be. More specifically, we should emulate the relative intensity of elite runners on these days, which was between 63-70% of 10k pace, based on a random sample of 24 elites.
Also, I'm not sure why you would say something that is so demonstrably false. Conner Mantz does in fact run quite slowly on his easy runs (relative to his race paces). He has a public Strava account and you can check it for yourself. He tends to do most of his easy runs between 6:30-7:10/mile.
And in regards to the other athletes you've mentioned - as I've said at least 3 times in this thread - unless we have access to the actual training logs of athletes, we can't know for sure that their accounts of what they did are wholly accurate. Seb Coe, for example, has at least 3 different versions of how much mileage he did, and how hard he did it. Memory tends to be quite selective, and therefore, people have a tendency to recall the hardest and fastest, and forget the ordinary, mundane easy miles.
However, in the article, I'm basing my prescription off actual documented training that's publicly available on Strava.
Haha thanks for putting up with letsrun—I know you've said this is frustrating for you, but a lot of us appreciate the work you put into this and the article and are looking forward to what else you write. At the very least this has generated lots of discussion and interest.
Cheers
Given that this is Letsrun, the pushback has been very modest.
Haven't you just picked 24 runners who train in a way in which you approve?
Molly Seidel, US Marathon Bronze medalist (10K time 32 mins). She no longer publically posts on Strava, but her easy runs were reported as in the 7-8 mins/mile range.
Eilish McColgan (4 time Olympian) occasionally posts on Strava. Her 10K time is 30 mins. She also runs easy at 7 mins plus per mile.
I'm not going to do the calculations on here, but it appears the two above also fit into the percentage range in the discussion article.
I went down the continental lists and used the first 24 athletes I could find that:
1) were in the top 10 for an event between 1,500m to the marathon.
and
2) uploaded all of their training to Strava (not just the good bits)
I invite you to compile a sample of 24 that contradict my findings (but I doubt you could).
However, this is still a group of runners who are far less heterogenous than the range of recreational runners.
Elite runners from 1500m to marathon cannot be extreme fast twitch or extreme slow twitch. The former would be sprinters and the latter would be ultra runners. Elites who run 1500 to marathon are somewhere in between.
Recreational runners are a more diverse group of people. While I don't think they include many fast twitch people, I suspect there are many who are more extreme slow twitch than elite runners. And most of them still race 5k to marathon instead of ultras.
So while your recommended pace might be good for many, or even most, of recreational runners, it may not be the "one size fits all" solution. Some people may need to run faster than that in order to maximize the benefit for them.
I'm also curious about this. There is some contingent of competitive NCAA programs (e.g. Stony Brook, GVSU, Charlotte, Providence) who intentionally do maintenance pace-esque training and there are others who informally keep their non-workout days honest. Some of them compensate for the extra stimulus by taking a weekly day off or spacing out workouts. But then again, other programs (e.g. Villanova) are more than happy to yog and clearly it works out for them
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will note: it seems implausible that the elites became elite by taking their easy days easy. Perhaps doing so allowed them to absorb the training, but I think most would agree that stress (in concert with recovery) is essential to getting better. So the question is, is it preferable and/or more feasible to distribute stress over the course of a whole week or to concentrate on key workouts? Could age/running history and muscle fiber type moderate this "who should do what training" equation? I would imagine that older runners, seasoned pros, and mid-d types would get less marginal utility out of maintenance pace vs other things they could do, but I also don't think it'd be fair to say a guy like Blanks, or even the 14:00ish Harvard guys, succeed "despite" their training
Anyway. I am here to learn and appreciate the discussion that has been had!
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will note: it seems implausible that the elites became elite by taking their easy days easy. Perhaps doing so allowed them to absorb the training, but I think most would agree that stress (in concert with recovery) is essential to getting better.
There probably isn't a lot of info available on elites becoming elite. However, the training of Jacob Ingebretson was shared, from age 12 onwards. I can't find the link for now, but I recall there was a massive amount of zone 1. Also, the ability to recover, during these early teenage years, is simply not comparable to the vast majority of older adults.
Most will be familiar with long running thread on Letsrun about Norwegian singles. This has been led by poster Sirpoc, who has had an amazing improvement at age 40.
His recent 10K PB was 30:40, and his easy runs are at 7:10ish per mile. His easy run pace falls within the range recommended by Paul Luttrell.
Are you suggesting those people run at the same bpm regardless of pace? How is that possible?
They run their easy days at circa 10k pace. When they race a half marathon, their average race pace can be slower than their easy pace. These are the one who enter a marathon, and never make it to the start line.
Yeah, pretty much what I was implying. For quite a few years when I was struggling to get back into good running, I only had two paces - run pace and strides pace. I just couldn't modulate my stride to anything in between. Whether it was a physical or mental barrier, or both, I cannot be sure (probably both), but it was NOT good. I'd break down, need time to heal, then repeat the cycle. I eventually got help working first with a running-oriented chiropractor, then his running-oriented in-house personal trainer, and from there, my own program of runner-targeted strength and conditioning (Running Rewired) that is ongoing. Once I developed better strength, stability, flexibility, and power, I re-discovered all the different gears that I was lacking for so long.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
A fun datapoint: John Korir's easy days are 7-8min/mile pace. For a 2:02-2:04 marathoner, that is solidly Zone 1, like me (15:30 5k PR) basically walking or walk-jogging. His hard days are often long continuous and intense efforts (but still just around MP with some variation that averages to be around MP), but aside from getting tons of time on feet (up to 16 hours!), it seems that he almost ignores Zone 2 work entirely. Easy is in fact extremely easy for him, yet he is extraordinarily fast. Obviously, genetics and prior life history of activity play major roles here, but he is in no way de-training as a result of running easy days so slowly relative to his performance level.
I fundamentally agree with the general principle that most people are probably doing their easy days too fast; my easy day paces more or less line up with the table presented at the end of the article.
I do however think an important aspect is being glossed over here, namely the mechanical load and forces that “easy” paces can generate.
I suspect that, even when the aerobic engine technically would allow for it, elite athletes wouldn’t do their easy paces just below LT1 because running 3:30-3:45/km or whatever is simply mechanically too taxing; unless they’re significantly lighter than dedicated amateurs, they’re still applying similar forces at those paces to their tendons, and greater aerobic fitness doesn’t mean that these tissues are automatically able to handle that much more mechanical strain. The extra injury risk isn’t worth the greater aerobic stimulus. Compare this to cycling, where volumes in general are much higher and much more “easy” time will be spent at a higher percentage of LT1. It’s more aerobic stimulus for the same amount of training time… but cyclists are not concerned about hurting their tendons by riding Z2.
I think this means that looking at elites for this tends to make the numbers less useful for extrapolation out to significantly slower amateurs. By the time people are running 7+min/km, for instance, I’m certain they could spend more of their easy runs at a higher percentage of LT1 than elites do as long as 1. they’re still giving themselves enough recovery to make their next workout 2. their slower pace isn’t due to other factors that could increase their injury risk, i.e. being very heavy.
I think the difference between male and female elites in your table already hints at this — a lot of people end up running similar easy paces even if it’s a different fractional use of their LT1, because it represents a sweetspot of low injury risk with aerobic stimulus.
A fun datapoint: John Korir's easy days are 7-8min/mile pace. For a 2:02-2:04 marathoner, that is solidly Zone 1, like me (15:30 5k PR) basically walking or walk-jogging. His hard days are often long continuous and intense efforts (but still just around MP with some variation that averages to be around MP), but aside from getting tons of time on feet (up to 16 hours!), it seems that he almost ignores Zone 2 work entirely. Easy is in fact extremely easy for him, yet he is extraordinarily fast. Obviously, genetics and prior life history of activity play major roles here, but he is in no way de-training as a result of running easy days so slowly relative to his performance level.
When I was out of shape, zone 2 was "easy", now that I'm getting into better shape, zone 2 is almost too hard as I am able to run too fast for legs on the easy days. I'm starting to observe that I need to be more zone 1, otherwise the niggles come back and they come furious. So I see what you're saying by Mr. Korir skipping zone 2, my only use of zone 2 would be warm up and cool down for sub threshold days, maybe long runs. Other easy days I am transitioning from zone 2 to zone 1.
I fundamentally agree with the general principle that most people are probably doing their easy days too fast; my easy day paces more or less line up with the table presented at the end of the article.
I do however think an important aspect is being glossed over here, namely the mechanical load and forces that “easy” paces can generate.
I suspect that, even when the aerobic engine technically would allow for it, elite athletes wouldn’t do their easy paces just below LT1 because running 3:30-3:45/km or whatever is simply mechanically too taxing; unless they’re significantly lighter than dedicated amateurs, they’re still applying similar forces at those paces to their tendons, and greater aerobic fitness doesn’t mean that these tissues are automatically able to handle that much more mechanical strain. The extra injury risk isn’t worth the greater aerobic stimulus. Compare this to cycling, where volumes in general are much higher and much more “easy” time will be spent at a higher percentage of LT1. It’s more aerobic stimulus for the same amount of training time… but cyclists are not concerned about hurting their tendons by riding Z2.
I think this means that looking at elites for this tends to make the numbers less useful for extrapolation out to significantly slower amateurs. By the time people are running 7+min/km, for instance, I’m certain they could spend more of their easy runs at a higher percentage of LT1 than elites do as long as 1. they’re still giving themselves enough recovery to make their next workout 2. their slower pace isn’t due to other factors that could increase their injury risk, i.e. being very heavy.
I think the difference between male and female elites in your table already hints at this — a lot of people end up running similar easy paces even if it’s a different fractional use of their LT1, because it represents a sweetspot of low injury risk with aerobic stimulus.
You're making the assumption that a 3:30-45/km is a far greater mechanical stress (proportionally) for an elite runner (who's likely running 30 seconds+ below LT1, who likely weighs less than 60kgs, who likely has far better running economy and who isn't working a full-time job) than a 4:30/km is for an amateur runner (who's likely running much closer to LT1, who likely weighs 70kgs+, who likely has relatively poor running economy, and who works a full-time job on top of training).
You're also making the assumption that one's ability to tolerate mechanical load doesn't scale with the amount of training one does each and every week.
But let's ignore all that.
My point is, that elite runners have demonstrated that very slow runs (proportionally) on easy days is the best way to manage load in a cycle of 2-3 hard workouts a week. If we're trying to do the best possible training, with the intention of progressing, why not copy that dynamic and try to build from there?
What seems to be happening among amateurs is, they're scaling down the volume to minimise load, but then adding in more load - in the form of intensity on easy days - and therefore, aren't able to progress because they can't manage load. Why not just scale down the volume to the appropriate level and leave it at that? You'll have a fairly good hard/easy dynamic that's proven effective among the best runners, and you won't have to make constant adjustments as you try to increase your overall volume.
We seem to be talking as if injury rates aren't what they are among amateur runners. I suspect that the high rates are largely due to the inability to accurately calculate load. When you increase the intensity of easy days, you're just throwing another variable in that further complicates that equation.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
Most will be familiar with long running thread on Letsrun about Norwegian singles. This has been led by poster Sirpoc, who has had an amazing improvement at age 40.
His recent 10K PB was 30:40, and his easy runs are at 7:10ish per mile. His easy run pace falls within the range recommended by Paul Luttrell.
I also came here to say this. Not only that, sirpoc has laid out the why's for the most part, for everything he does. Especially as a now 41 year old runner. He identified quite early that using 65% of MAS or 70% max HR, whichever one of those came first, that would likely keep the absolute vast majority of runners honest, recovered and under LT1 when using a blanket approach.
You're making the assumption that a 3:30-45/km is a far greater mechanical stress (proportionally) for an elite runner (who's likely running 30 seconds+ below LT1, who likely weighs less than 60kgs, who likely has far better running economy and who isn't working a full-time job) than a 4:30/km is for an amateur runner (who's likely running much closer to LT1, who likely weighs 70kgs+, who likely has relatively poor running economy, and who works a full-time job on top of training).
You're also making the assumption that one's ability to tolerate mechanical load doesn't scale with the amount of training one does each and every week.
But let's ignore all that.
My point is, that elite runners have demonstrated that very slow runs (proportionally) on easy days is the best way to manage load in a cycle of 2-3 hard workouts a week. If we're trying to do the best possible training, with the intention of progressing, why not copy that dynamic and try to build from there?
What seems to be happening among amateurs is, they're scaling down the volume to minimise load, but then adding in more load - in the form of intensity on easy days - and therefore, aren't able to progress because they can't manage load. Why not just scale down the volume to the appropriate level and leave it at that? You'll have a fairly good hard/easy dynamic that's proven effective among the best runners, and you won't have to make constant adjustments as you try to increase your overall volume.
We seem to be talking as if injury rates aren't what they are among amateur runners. I suspect that the high rates are largely due to the inability to accurately calculate load. When you increase the intensity of easy days, you're just throwing another variable in that further complicates that equation.
Thanks for your response.
Again I don’t disagree that most people are probably doing their easy days too fast. But I think you’re overfitting the principles you’ve taken from a small sample size of people who, by definition, are exceptional outliers. You also more or less glossed over the fact that the women were running at a higher percentage of their race paces and provided no explanation. I think mechanical load is an important part of this puzzle and goes some way to explaining why elites would run so very slowly on their easy days. Have you considered sampling sub-elites and successful age-groupers?
To your more detailed points: I don’t need to assume that 3:30-45/km is a significantly higher mechanical load than 4:30/km — it simply is! Mechanical load scales unevenly with an increase in pace, meaning the risk increases nonlinearly as faster runners approach their LT1. Your caveat about weight is something I already included… but if you insist on assuming that amateurs are heavier, then it is you that is making assumptions, not me. Indeed, a lot of dedicated amateurs are already in a similar weight category as elites and I doubt that differences in running economy would lead to significantly different tendon loading.
Again — because you started restating arguments that I already said I fundamentally agree with — I think most amateurs could do with running their easy days easier. I do not see any evidence in what you’ve laid out, however, that supports simple scaling from one extreme (elites) to another (amateurs racing 10km slower than 50min).
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.